Forum

TruthMove Forum

TruthMove Forum » TruthMove Main Forum

Role of Flight 93 (11 posts)

  1. BobSalad
    Member

    Just wanted to get some perspectives on the role of Flight 93 in the attacks as it seems (to me at least) to be the one event which appears at odds with everything else.

    I'm kind of nudging myself toward the idea of 93 being 'designed-in' solely to function as an instrument of propoganda, inasmuch that the storyline of the supposed (albeit futile) heroics of the passengers would help to act as a catalysis in galvanizing the public's desire to 'fight back' in the days following the attacks. I think the way the media ran with the story seems to confirm as much.

    Having said that, I did read somewhere else that popuar thinking has it that 93's role was one which supported the psy-ops, and was perhaps added to the attack plans so as to represent an additional meme whose function was to underpin the other attacks, which is equally as plausible.

    Just wanted to hear what others may think on this.

    Posted 15 years ago #
  2. emanuel
    Member

    It is also possible that 93 was meant to be crashed somewhere else, but the passengers discovered (via cell phones) what happened to the other planes, told the hijackers, and the hijackers said, "Holy shit! We didn't know we were going to die. Can anyone help us regain control of the plane from this remote control system?" At that point the plane had to be shot down before word got out (via cell phones) that it was being flown by remote control.

    Disclaimer: I don't think this discussion will further any cause of justice or peace, nor have any practical relevance for any efforts for social or political change.

    Emanuel

    Posted 15 years ago #
  3. truthmod
    Administrator

    Yes, flight 93 is curious. Whether it was created/planned before or after, the "let's roll" story smacks of propaganda. David Ray Griffin and others argue the possibility that the passengers were fighting back to take control of the plane, and I believe there was a professional pilot among them. The plane was then supposedly shot down to prevent this from happening and any loose ends that might result. This does seem like a too-perfect story from the "truther" perspective, but who knows.

    Maybe the questions we should be asking are about the 3 minute discrepancy in the crash time, the wide debris field, the strange sounds on the flight data recorder, etc...

    From : http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/flight...

    There are several independent lines of evidence that establish that Flight 93 crashed at 10:06 in Shanksville, PA. These include the following:

    • Seismic signals recorded by seismic observatories at Soldier's Delight, MD, and Millersville, PA, which pegged the impact time at 10:06:05, with an error margin of 5 seconds.
    • A report from Cleveland Air Traffic Control that they had lost radar contact with Flight 93 at 10:06. 4
    • Reports by witnesses on the ground of the plane flying low and erratically around 10:05. 5
    • Various press reports that put the time at 10:06. 6 7 8
      -Radar records released by the FAA. The Post-Gazette noted, two days after the attack: -The Federal Aviation Administration said yesterday it turned over to the FBI a radar record of United Airlines Flight 93's route.

      The data traced the Boeing 757-200 from its takeoff from Newark, N.J., to its violent end at 10:06 a.m., just outside Shanksville, about 80 miles southeast of Pittsburgh. 9

    Despite these extensive bodies of credible evidence establishing Flight 93's impact time at 10:06 AM, NORAD and the 9/11 Commission asserted that impact was at 10:03. NORAD provides no evidence to back up its claim, but the Commission provides a long footnote to justify its use of 10:03.


    I think that this is a more reasonable subject to speculate over or try to think out logically than the spire collapse mentioned in another recent thread here.

    Posted 15 years ago #
  4. truthmover
    Administrator

    I recommend going with the most likely scenario outside the official story, keeping in mind Occam's razor.

    The possibility of passengers retaking the plane became evident and so they shot it down.

    Or, assuming that the planes were supposed to impact their targets near in time to one another, but that something went wrong, making 77 and 93 run late, we might assume that the government would have had no excuse about why they didn't shoot the plane down if it had reached it's target. So they decided after shooting it down to fabricate a story that would serve to bolster the uptake of the larger official story.

    Beyond that, I feel that we are getting into much more uncertain territory.

    Posted 15 years ago #
  5. Victronix
    Member

    Yes, flight 93 is curious. Whether it was created/planned before or after, the "let's roll" story smacks of propaganda.

    Yes, and this is one part that really never had to be "planned", even if it may have been -- the propaganda. Look how much was made of the miracle on the Hudson? It was a great thing, but they really know how to feed off these things, use them. For all we know FL93 just went amok of its plan and got shot down and there was nothing more to it than that. There would be no way to ever confirm what the plan was from the evidence.

    I personally think that speculation about events that have so little basis in the evidence that they only go in circles is dropped on us to waste our time, even if the person posting it is sincere and has genuine questions. It's just a part of a larger "time-wasting" type of derailment.

    Posted 15 years ago #
  6. Arcterus
    Member

    The failure to intercept the planes is an important aspect of 9/11, an aspect which would be much more difficult to ignore if they succeeded with one but failed with the other 3. It's thus plausible that it was shot down by an attempt to intercept it and the heroic story was pasted over it so that the thought would not occur to people. This is, of course, baseless speculation, and like others have noted in this topic, I don't think the role of flight 93 is very relevant to ascertaining the truth.

    Posted 15 years ago #
  7. truthmod
    Administrator

    Hello Arcterus, welcome to the forum. Thanks for your input. The TruthMove forum is a fairly small community, we hope you find some insightful discussions here and look forward to hearing more from you.

    Posted 15 years ago #
  8. Arcterus
    Member

    I discovered the site through a comment on my blog. It's so pleasing to see a group of so many people who are so reasonable and discerning.

    Posted 15 years ago #
  9. truthmover
    Administrator

    Welcome. Glad you payed us a visit. It was I who commented on your first blog post. Glad to hear that our effort at keeping this forum productive is apparent.

    And your blog is off to a great start. Just please don't feel the need to defend every last sentence you write. The goons might try to guilt trip you into it, but the movement really does need people confidently making these assessments.

    The goons would have you believe that historical precedent should play no role in the assessment of their actions. And that argument might work for people unfamiliar with the relevant history. But infiltration and disruption are certainly well developed skills with identifiable tactics.

    A couple of points. First, I caution you against optimism about the formation of new groups in the movement. After having seen many groups started, I really think it takes a number of months before it's possible to say whether their impact is positive or not. Unfortunately, I figure, and in some cases know, that many of these groups are infiltrated from the beginning, and for all the best intent of their founders, are likely to be lead astray. I think it's best to judge them by their actions, and not their mission statement.

    Second, good luck with Craig Ranke. I've gone ten rounds with him, and have come to the personal conclusion that he's not being genuine. It doesn't take long to feel that way about him. But it took me a few weeks to be willing to state it publicly. I think Arabesque put the nails in that coffin, and that anyone seriously interested in 9/11 truth should be explicitly warned to steer clear of being distracted by CIT.

    Third, yes, Zeitgeist is a pile of crap. The 9/11 section is nearly as bad a 9/11 truth document as there is. And while the movie does have three parts, they cannot be judged entirely independently from one another. However, Addendum might actually be worth watching. It doesn't deal with 9/11 truth, is far more factually oriented, seems to be intentionally steering clear of conspiracy theory, and in places is relatively educational. It has problems, but if you are bored with nothing to do, have a look.

    Your blog seems like a positive contribution to the movement, so I hope you can stay with it. I think one post a day might lead to burnout, so pace yourself. Also, I recommend including a profile. You can keep it as anonymous as necessary and still let people know a bit about how you came to be so interested and informed.

    Posted 15 years ago #
  10. Arcterus
    Member

    I agree with you about various organizations. If their actions started to stray away from assisting the movement, I'd immediately recant.

    Yeah, I think Arabesque's critique on CIT and The Pentacon is one of the best rebuttals on the web.

    I wasn't going to watch Addendum since the first one was so highly flawed, but since you speak (relatively) positively of it, I might give it a watch if I have time.

    I think one post a day might lead to burnout, so pace yourself.

    Haha, that's only for the first couple of weeks or so. Just to get it rolling. Otherwise I'd worry of neglecting the blog if I only have a couple updates up.

    Thanks for the comments.

    Posted 15 years ago #
  11. Victronix
    Member

    Hello Arcterus -- your blog looks good.

    I think the response to the issue of FL 93 depends on the person. My response about it being time-wasting comes mainly from my vantage point of all the stuff I have to do and how little time there is to do it, my own frustration. But others may have more time and it is worth looking into if someone -- for some reason -- does have that time.

    I also think Arabesque's work is some of the best out there. Arabesque can focus and complete complex essays and analysis in record time. He also has done a great thing by encouraging others to start their own blogs.

    Posted 15 years ago #

Reply

You must log in to post.